Canada's Star Chambers

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The commissions, which are a part of the government of Canada (here's a hint, who cuts their cheques), are prosecuting steyn.

What the ****. Look up what prosecuting means. Jesus christ.

Fine. Then tell me a source that meets your criteria as reliable.

Otherwise stop *****ing about the people who wrote it.

I've no ****ing idea why I have to keep saying I don't care about your EDITORIALS or any EDITORIALS AT ALL.

I don't consider editorials "sources", and nor should anyone who is not ****ing stupid.

Thank you Asher. Now, why are you claiming I don't know the facts of the case?

You keep saying that the government of Canada is "prosecuting" this man and that the ruling was against him. Both of these are complete lies.


Honestly, you are the most incapable human being I have ever met in my life. I'm done in this thread.

Christ on a stick.

[Ben Kenobi]

Read the ****ing thread, I've said it multiple times.

I have. That post, POST NUMBER 23 was the first time you said that the BC Human Rights Commission continues to review the case.

You had not made the distinction between the BC and the Ontario commissions prior.

So you are saying BC's HRC will rule in favour of the Islamic congress given that Ontario's HRC ruled against?

Which is it Asher? You said earlier that the Ontario HRC refused to hear the case. Did you lie then or are you lying now? There is an important difference between refusing to hear the case, and ruling against the Islamic Congress. In the second, they would award Steyn punitive damages for harassment, if they find the complaint without merit.

Our CIVIL LIBERTIES will be under assault once you get your way and disband human right commissions and stop the process of human rights complaints. As of now, our civil liberties are being observed.

How so? When people can complain and get opinions they personally disagree with shut down? I don't think that's the case here in Canada. I certainly don't believe that is under anyone's assessment the proper use of the HRC.

I have no problems with the institution in themselves, but mission creep has proven them both insulated to reform, and now working against why they were originally created. I think that is a good argument in favour of their outright abolition.

Do you think I'm a fan of Islam? Really? Islam is more of an "enemy" to homosexuality than Christianity is, for christ sakes. Islamic nations openly execute children for suspected homosexuality. I am in no way on "their side", nor did I ever say if I even disagreed with the guy's article.

Thank you. That is all I am saying. If the Human Rights Commission rules against Steyn, (which I feel will eventually happen), then that will give the impetus for futher complaints by Muslims against anyone who expresses an opinion that they don't like, or find offensive.

The difference here is YOU are the one that wishes to trample on civil liberties by revoking people's right to raise complaints to human rights commissions.

Where have I said that? I want them stopped because the Commissions are already revoking rights and trampling on civil liberties. How do I want to revoke rights when I am sounding the alarm here that our rights are already being trampled. Don't you see this?

You want me to find a source to say that the HRC hasn't ruled and there's no censorship going on here? What the FLYING **** is wrong with you.

You are calling me a liar, so yes, I am going to ask you for a quote. Since you have none, I'll presume you are pulling it out of your ass.

Why the HELL did you just ask me for a source when you just NOW admitted there is "No action yet" indicating THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP GOING ON indicating MY STATEMENT WAS CORRECT.

How much has it cost Steyn to defend himself in the commission? That is a form of intimidation and censorship, I don't know if you see it but if someone can complain about an opinion they don't like and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves, that is a major impediment to their freedom of expression.

Yes, there is censorship going on here, justice delayed is justice denied.

[Asher]

HOLY **** THIS KID IS DUMB

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have. That post was the first time you said that the BC Human Rights Commission continues to review the case.

You had not made the distinction between the BC and the Ontario commissions prior.

Post 23, http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showt...53#post5337053

BTW, this was first raised to the Ontario Human Rights commission, which rejected the case and took no action. It's now raised against the BC Human Rights commission, which has not ruled.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've no ****ing idea why I have to keep saying I don't care about your EDITORIALS or any EDITORIALS AT ALL.

I don't consider editorials "sources", and nor should anyone who is not ****ing stupid.

I am asking, who would you consider an impartial source?

You keep saying that the government of Canada is "prosecuting" this man and that the ruling was against him. Both of these are complete lies.

If you had read what I have said over and over again, I am saying that the Commissions are prosecuting him, and that the ruling is likely to be against him because the commissions currently have a 100 percent ratio of successful prosecutions.

I notice you've dodged that point throughout?

Do you contest that in every case they have chosen to prosecute, that the defendent has always lost?

[Ben Kenobi]

Why does this bother you so much?

Everything I've said is the truth.

You don't like the sources, but that's too bad. You've had no evidence that the sources are wrong and have refused to even read the sources at all.

You've reworded my argument to say what I don't say at all.

What's your problem here Asher?

I know you are smarter then this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why does this bother you so much?

Everything I've said is the truth.

You are LYING blatantly or by omission.

The very PREMISE of this thread is a lie. There's NO government ruling that has been made here. Even if there WAS this does not constitute a TOTALITARIAN STATE.

You need to look up "TOTALITARIAN" as well as "PROSECUTE" and figure out what "DUE PROCESS" means.

This whole thread is based off lies and what you foresee as occurring. That's no basis.

This thread should be locked and you should be banned for a year for crimes against humanity for this epic stupidity.

[Deity Dude]

I have to agree with Ben here. I in no way can understand how writing an article, no matter what the opinion stated in the article is, can be a violation of someone or some group's human rights.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I have to agree with Ben here. I in no way can understand how writing an article, no matter what the opinion stated in the article is, can be a violation of someone or some group's human rights.

You're completely missing the point. I don't even disagree with that.

Ben's point is Canada is a totalitarian state because its human right commissions are reviewing complaints. You agree with that? If so, find a cliff and jump off of it. The government has not ruled that the article constitutes a violation of human rights, it's just the claim made by a citizen group. This is no different from a frivolous lawsuit.

[snoopy369]

-> Asher and Ben Silly Argument forum

Seriously, can you all possibly post in a thread together without tearing each other's hair out???

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
-> Asher and Ben Silly Argument forum

Seriously, can you all possibly post in a thread together without tearing each other's hair out???

I move we ban Ben Kenobi from the site for his crimes against humanity.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are LYING blatantly or by omission.

It's either one or the other.

The very PREMISE of this thread is a lie.

Which premise? "Canada's Star Chambers"?

RTFA. They discuss the issues they have with due process. You've already admitted to me you haven't bothered.

There's NO government ruling that has been made here. Even if there WAS this does not constitute a TOTALITARIAN STATE.

Where did I say a ruling had been made? Which post Asher? I've not contested that at all.

This, btw is the first good argument you've had all thread. No, you are right that the existence of star chambers is not enough in and of itself to say that Canada is a totalitarian state. It is an indication that Canada is well on the way towards becoming one. Call it the Canary in the Coal mine.

This whole thread is based off lies and what you foresee as occurring. That's no basis.

Lies? You'll have to provide some evidence that what I've said is not true.

This thread should be locked and you should be banned for a year for crimes against humanity for this epic stupidity.

I dare you to complain to the moderators to get this thread shut down because of

quote unquote -"epic stupidity".

That's the biggest laugh I've had all day Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's either one or the other.

Not when you're spewing many lies out.

Which premise? "Canada's Star Chambers"

The premise that Canada is a totalitarian state on the basis of somebody filing a HRC complaint that has not been ruled either way yet.

Where did I say a ruling had been made? Which post Asher? I've not contested that at all.

It's kind of an implication of your claim that Canada is a totalitarian state.

That's the biggest laugh I've had all day Asher.

I'm glad you find your stupidity as amusing as the rest of this site does.

I took a streetcar yesterday with Canada's Special Olympics curling team yesterday (no joke). And I'm certain I've heard more coherent arguments on that streetcar than I've ever heard from you here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not when you're spewing many lies out.

Then it would be "lying blatently AND by omission". It's mighty hard for me to lie blatently or by omission.

The premise that Canada is a totalitarian state on the basis of somebody filing a HRC complaint that has not been ruled either way yet.

Do you see the Steyn case as isolated?

I'm glad you find your stupidity as amusing as the rest of this site does.

I just got a chuckle that Ming would see a pm from you saying:

"thread should be locked because of 'epic stupidity'. "

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then it would be "lying blatently AND by omission". It's mighty hard for me to lie blatently or by omission.

Holy ****, you don't understand simple boolean logic either.

Really. like...BASIC stuff here.

I just got a chuckle that Ming would see a pm from you saying:

"thread should be locked because of 'epic stupidity'. "

I report virtually every post you make with that kind of quote.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles

You're completely missing the point. I don't even disagree with that.

Ben's point is Canada is a totalitarian state because its human right commissions are reviewing complaints. You agree with that? If so, find a cliff and jump off of it. The government has not ruled that the article constitutes a violation of human rights, it's just the claim made by a citizen group. This is no different from a frivolous lawsuit.

Exactly. In the US a judge rules before a trial as to whether or not the proposed case meetstheminimum for a hearing. It is called DUE process.

In the US, you can't sue someone over an editorial, unless there is libel. This case should be a non-starter. It also appears here that it is within the realm of possibility that this "tribunal" will hear the case and possibly rule in favor of the Islamic Council. The mere fact that that possibility exists would tend to hamper free speech. Without being an expert on Canadian Law it appears that the decisions of these "tribunals" are non-reviewable. That puts them above the Supreme Court. It also appears that if you don't like the decision in Ontario you can take it up in BC, and I would then assume any province or territory. With 10 provinces and 3 territories, that means that if the courts agreed with you 12 out of 13 times you could still be found guilty. In the US we have a concept of double jeopardy. Doesn't Canada have a similiar concept? (This is a serious question)

While totalitarian might be a little extreme, it really isn't that far off if you consider one of the key elements of a Totalitarian regime is to suppress free thought and free speech. In this case, theoretically, 2 out of 39 judges could find your words a violation and you lose. I'm sure that has 2 effects:

1) It probably emboldens people to bring these cases up since there is such a high probability of winning and the costs are only bore by the defendent.

2) It probably stops a lot of people from expressing unconventional views for the fear of being sued all the time.

Both have the same impact. They unduly hinder free speech.